Replies

<>Now, it may be the case that you and the atheist think Lucifer is the most beautiful of God's creation. I don't.<>

I provided a reference. I mentioned there are varying views. I never indicated my own view. I think the point of whether Lucifer was the most beautiful creation is of little importace.

<> But you thought it important enough to provide an atheist with what you imagined was scripture that supported his assertion.<>

I was providing a reference for someone I do not know and in a discussion I was not following closely. He thanked me for the reference.

<>I suggest you go back and read your #167 post. It is ineluctable you were supporting the assertion of an atheist and it is also ineluctable you selected that scripture to prove his assertion.

<>Instead of incorrectly judging my post as a return to a path I forsook, you might think about thanking me for, correctly, characterising the attempted support you extended so that you can now back away from it.<>

Now, as a part of the new CG, let go of it with me.

<> You insert yourself into the action between me and an atheist I was challenging and you insert yourself on behalf of an atheist and you tell me to "let go of it?"<>

Your comment "you and the atheist" is a step back on the old path that you forsook.

<> My post about this subject had to do with the comments made by an atheist. You saw fit to jump into the conversation on his behalf. Your post was not applicable - it referenced the K.O.T. and had to do with his pride - the sin of Lucifer.

I stand by my post. It is factual and it was drafted and posted with dispassion. The fact remains you did see fit to assist an atheist in sourcing from the Bible. I am happy that both of you have failed to source from the Bible anything authoritative that supports the atheist's assertion.

I see you are trying to back away from that support. Good. But, you can't slough-off your assisting an atheist onto a false characterising of my actions. You have to account for your own actions. I am not gulty of anything regarding this matter<>

Dear Catholicguy and drstevej,

I'll start by saying that I'm really uncomfortable making this post, as I don't like being in this position. However, CG, you pinged me here, and so have you, Steve. I can imagine that you were perhaps looking for my opinion about all this. So, stepping out in faith, friends, here is my opinion.

Catholicguy, I don't see drstevej's posts as posts of support to the other poster. I see drstevej's post # 167 as an effort to provide information. My own reading of his subsequent posts is that he is describing a theological position taken by some, but he is careful to word his posts in a way so that it isn't reasonable to infer that he supports this position.

I see your response in # 178 as perfectly reasonable. Drstevej's reply in # 180 appears to me a be a little inappropriately defensive. You hadn't really attacked drstevej in any personal way in # 178, only said that such an interpretation regarding the King of Tyre was wrong.

Here is your comment from # 183:

"Now, it may be the case that you and the atheist think Lucifer is the most beautiful of God's creation. I don't."

Even at this point, I don't think that you've said anything unfair or inappropriate. Drstevej's defense of an alternative interpretation to yours could give rise to the view that he accepted the interpretation.

In my view, drstevej is wrong to say, in post # 185:

"Now, as a part of the new CG, let go of it with me. Your comment 'you and the atheist' is a step back on the old path that you forsook."

But your final post, #188, where you ping me to this discussion, goes a little too far, in my view. I think that you're reading into drstevej's posts intentions which probably aren't there.

Here are some of your comments:

"...The fact remains you did see fit to assist an atheist in sourcing from the Bible. I am happy that both of you have failed to source from the Bible anything authoritative that supports the atheist's assertion.

"I see you are trying to back away from that support. Good."

I just don't think it's fair to say that Steve's posts were meant to assist the atheist in making his argument. I viewed Steve's post as being merely an effort to supply a missing piece of information. I don't view this as support for the atheist, and I don't think, then, that it's fair to characterize Steve as now "trying to back away from that support", since it isn't at all clear to me that he ever was giving the atheist any support.

In my own view, I think you're both getting your hackles up unnecessarily, and perhaps you could each back off a bit.

Steve, I don't think that Catholicguy was initially saying anything personally offensive to you, only that the interpretations that you offered were wrong.

Catholicguy, I really don't think drstevej was ever actually endorsing the interpretation that he presented as one that exists, and I don't view him as having "taken sides" with the other poster against your position.

I DO think that you were both ready to make negative inferences about the other that aren't really justified.

Now, you may proceed to kill the messenger.

;-)

sitetest